Jump to content

Coactum

Registered Users

Change your profile picture
  • Content Count

    640
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

88 Excellent

About Coactum

  • Rank
    Basic Account Holder
  1. It does indeed and that is why I thought is was 5 years for both in Scotland
  2. I have a disputed account that was passed among various lenders over the years as one bought from another. On each occasion as and when I was contacted I responded repudiating their claim. None of the companies involved attempted to prove their claim in court and now the matter is statute barred. Upon receipt of the latest letter I responded to the current holder of the alleged debt in writing advising them that as this had been in dispute for over 5 years that under the terms of the Prescriptions and Limitations Act (Scotland) 1973 that the matter was now time barred and any further attempt at collection could be construed as harassment. They have responded acknowledging my obligation to pay is now extinguished but highlight that they will continue to report the matter to Credit Referencing Agencies. Now I know that a debt becomes Statute Barred in England at 6 years and this corresponds with the maximum time a bad debt is listed with Credit Bureaus, but I thought in Scotland that it was 5 years for both. Can someone please clarify?
  3. I got a call from 03333 440 564 and the caller had a strong accent; probably African, but she could barely speak English. The number relates to MKRR although she used yet another company either that or she was trying to pronounce the acronym in her local dialect, who knows, anyway they have called again using someone who does speak English reverting to the MKRR name. Also had several phones ring at once from 01252 576422 who I understand to be Capquest. They are of course wasting their time because I’ll never enter meaningful discussions with them but it would seem that my theory is wrong and that they have not put me to one side for a while.
  4. Perhaps I was mistaken. I've just had a text from CapQuest asking me to phone them on an 08 number quoting a reference. It was far easier to delete the message. It has been a very long time since CapQuest have tried to contact me so perhaps they sent this text to the wrong number but it really does call into question how bizarre the world of debt collection is. Just imaging the board room meeting…. “Oh I have a great new plan that will save us a fortune” “please tell” “well rather than sending out door step collectors why don’t we just send a text and ask the debtor to contact us and arrange payment over the phone” “what a spiffing idea chaps”
  5. Just giving credence to my theory that if you ignore them they move along I’ve not had a call since Thursday 28th March. Must be other peoples turn now we are into March. If my estimate is correct that I guess I’ll hear from them again in May.
  6. I not only stopped the PPI but also stopped paying the acount claiming that one offset the other and to this day that stalemate remains. If the related accounts it ever comes to court that I can demonstrate my logic in offsetting and counter claim.
  7. Thanks zydeco, I'm in Scotland that will become 5 years http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1973/52 and as I first raised the dispute in 2005 I guess I'm well past the limit
  8. Ah wilco999 I also have PPI on some of my accounts but thought the I'd be Statute Barred in making claim as I've failed to take action within 5 years. One of my disputes relates to this very topic and if they refunded the PPI it would exceed the debt! Can someone please clarify the time limit for reclaiming PPI?
  9. And a very wise "commercial decision" that was too LostAtSea
  10. Oh I'm certain that's definately wrong and if you were to take a loan out to service another debt would you not be showing preference to one creditor over another? In the event of insolvency I'm sure any sums paid this way swould be reclaimed.
  11. Oh yes, I've had those recorded messages on my mobile also. Bearing in mind that they could not reasonably confirm that the number dialled was my mobile number I have to express that I was surprised at the content of the recording.
  12. You gave a fiar point SillyGirl1 about the Without Prejudice but that's what I've done. The letters I refer to are from a solicitor acting for the debt collector and most were probably sent by the DCA using the solicitors letterhead. They are not worth bothering about and most are simply ignored especially when the make reference to English law.
  13. Thanks spamhead. Good to know that these recorded discussions are inadmissible. I'm sure I've not put anything is writing that did not contain "Without Prejudice" and in the body of text I’ve always expressed that I repudiate the claim and asked them to prove their case. Some have actually replied to this request but all contain flaws of one form or another that i've replied and highlighted.
  14. Hi SillyGirl1, I'd advise you not to enter into any telephone discussions and to insist that all communications are conducted in writing. At the very beginning of any call they will go through the process of verifying who you are. Just refuse and say "if there is anything you wish to say to SillyGirl1 please sent it in writing" if you feel the urge to reply then ensure that you admit nothing. I have heaps of letters that follow the same pattern. They begin with a polite please pay. Move on to if you don't pay something bad will happen. Next comes This will be escallated if you do not do something Then comes the Solicitors letter However, untill it looks as if they are actually going to go to courty I sit back and at the last minute I reply with my demands. This usually sends them away again. It may not work for you though!
×
×
  • Create New...